WARDEN'S COURT, HOZITikA.

West Coast Times, Issue 8074, 13 February 1891, Page 2

WARDEN'S COURT, HOKITIKA.

Thohsdat, .Fjsbbxtaby 12.

(Before D. iftacfarianc, figq., Warden*)

C. Harris v S. Graham and others, suit to recover ehaTe in a claim. ■ , Air Park appeared for complainant ; Mr Purkiss fur defendants.

For the complainant Mr P^rk called G. Harris, Mho deposed that he was a miner. Pegged .off & claim at Back Ureek on. November 12 of four men's ground. Hamrl asshted him to mark off; the remainder of the men Were on the grojund difririg tbe day; I applied for protection oa December 11. j'he claim was undispdtjad nt tbit iime. A few days afterwards 1 hear dine claim was jumped ; the next day I saw Graham, Harcus and By an ; they refused to give up possession ; one of. them euggeatei I should pay the wages inau ; Stephen alterwaYuß asked mfc to pay him £2 10s for. working m$ share ; lou tbe 19th I sent or) Ovington to I work my share. During the holidays I sent Pickering up. Oo the sth I went to |he claim when J* arena i said 1 had better pay the other wages man a ! a there wa? no use in haying two men to pay. They were working two shifts. Next day I eerit Milluer up; but they 1 w~duld hot allow him to work ; I weut up later on with Mr Murdoch and, instructed him to pay Stbphen £10 or wb'a'e^er Ho claimed as wdgea ; Stephen would not, accept, .Cross-examined — I made a sort bf a sate to Ovington for £5 ; .the £10 I gave Mr Mutda.eE to pay Stephen I borrowed fiotn ft/r Bigriell. The day before this I money was offered the adjoining claim struck payable gdld ; this did ndl influence me ; Mr iiigialU has often assisted me. John Pickering, miner, Artburstown, said that he saw Harris about Christmas time and was asked by him to work bis bhare $ saw Bob Stephen who said £5 Was owing oh tbe share ; I tinderst'dod it Was j owing on Harris's share. I said if that was the case I would have nothing to do with it. , : Jamea Millner deposed tbat he Went oh the ground with Harris to work the latter 'a shVt. .The men said Ibafe a m4n ' was working the Share, and ttfitil he was paid they would not allow anyont else to work, i wmb up to" the ground another time and 'he men told me they would ' | allow no ode else to come to work till the, wages men were paid j I represented the "share for Harris that day. J, M. Murddck, articled law clerk* gave evidence that he visited the ground in company with complainant, saw t tepheu a t'd asked him to give particulars of amount owing by Harris. Stephen re. fused luting that before. tbe holidays he regarded himself as a wages man, but now he considered be was one of the party. This was tha case for the complainant. At 12,45, tbe Court adjourned till 2 p.m. AFTERNOON SITTINGK Tbe Court resumed at two o'clock. HARRIS V. GRAHAM AMD OTHBBS.

Mr Purkiss opened the case for the defence, and called . John Ryan, who deposed that the claim was held to be abandoned on January 12, when they re-marked it, leaving an area equal to one man's ground on the one side for Harris. Our party assisted Higgins and Party to sink their shaft, five men of our party and four men of Higgins' parly. We worked in this mnner f.r about three weeks and our claim during that time was abandoned. When Miltoer came tip we were helping Higgins and party to sink. Cross-examined — I did not object to Harris coming into the claim if he went to work. This was when be first said he had a share in the ground. Up to December lt> »c recognised Stephen as a wages man for Harris.

To the Warden — We would not now be willing to give Harris a one man's ground on the western boundary.

I Richard Harcns said the ground when he pegged out appeared to be abandoned ground. Had a Bbare in it in November. Left the ground and with another party, sank a shatt 95 feet deep, then came baok again. During the time wo were away only a tree had been fallen. On the 17th December Harris said he had a share, and Graham said if so be had better pull off bis coat and go to work. Harris laughed and made light of it and said he had better have a claim to himself. We thetf re the claim, leaving Harris one man' 6 ground tv the west. We then went to work with Higgins and Party and all the ground was abandoned. On Btriking the wash in Higgins' we marked out our own claim again, taking in tbe portion to the west that we had left out before for Herris, '

In err ß3-esaminatiob .witness admitted that he saw the protection notice on the ground when marking it out on December 12.

Samuel Graham said he did not corroborate the evidence of Ryan and Harcue, not a word of it. He agreed with it, it was substantially correct. .

This was the caae for the defence, Mr Furkies urged that there had been an agreement between tbe defendants and

Harriet &i I$U Bho|fe ha% a one man's fcSWn&knattiat wj»Sai#ately - given ttfin. BubWquenfly the .Whole of the grflirad haft b'ejn ftbandosfyd jbjy all the parties 'and V&s marked tfut again on January 12. Mr Park oontended tbat tbe defendants should have given notice requiring Harris to have his s-hare represented, tbis was what the law required. If he did not do so they could then take up the ground. The second marking out was merely done to defraud Harris of his share. The Bench said the bulk of the evidence went to show that on December 12 it was decided tbat Harris should bave one man's ground and that was given to htm, After December 17 the ground was abandoned for three weeka and tbe subsequent marking out was the marking out of an ent'roly new claim. Judgment would be for defendents with cost's and counsel's fee £2 2s.

Thos Ovington v Charlea Barnes and other?. Mr Purki^a for complainant- Mr Moss for defendants. Suit for dissolution of partnership,

Mr Purkiss ea'd the parties ciuld not agree in the working of tbe cViin,.some overtures had been made for selling the sbares, but tfey fell through and now the parties bad to come to the Gourt. He called

Tboi. Ovington w' 6 eaid tbat he was. a practical miner of man; years experien'o.% |iis mates had no experience of mining jind would not accept, bis decision. ' They could not get on at all and be would not stay wich them. They offcrei to give or t tg take £3 a share. ,He offered t^e money:, but they refused anl said the claim ah oil a be sold by auction. His mates bad little or no knowledge oF mining and were always blaspheming. In cross-examination the complainant gaye evidence as to the construction of the shaft. t , William Coopergave evidence that he met the deferidinta, JBarna, vltow4tv Itow4t a'ld Sargison, who daid they would either give or take £3 a store. ; Gross-examined -. I anl not saro whe'her t v ey said they would take £3 or if it WBS worth £3. Ovih^toh did not slab the shaff the same way I eh^uld have dona, Very few miners would have slabbed ltTa the same way, , . M'Master depdsed going with Qv,ingtoir and M' Donald to Bee Howat and Bargisoh. ■ O vinx ton offered them I*3 apiece for their gharea but they refused, to fell They said if Ovington liked he Could bave it put up to auction. John McDonald, went with Qvington to see Howat and Stygison. He corroborated the evidence of the previous witness. sThii was tbe case for the complainant; Mr Moss opened for the defence and called It-ibert HosVafc, jun ri ., deposed that the omplainant |6fs the- sbaft about a. fort* night ago. He said, the shaft was no longer sjfe to work i'q. We have worked the slat continuously «iuce he left. It is perfectly "safe and constructed in a work> manlike manner. I told, complainant to come back to work or put a man on. I did not fay 1 would Hell, for £%>. <md myself have put all our iaoney into the work ; Ovlnjiton brought nothing but an (Id shovel. , , Gross-examined : Ovington did all the blaming. ,lhad^don^ none before. . /_> At this a! age negotiations bet .vet n the part'ea for an amlcabje s'ttliement were commenced, sndJae Courc Vdj >urped till the nest day^t 8.00n., ,